Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 10:36 PM) Flash do yourself a favor and don't look at this thread. Yeah, well, too late for that. Now you've got me started. It's beginning to irritate me watching Garza dominate, knowing he'll replace Radke next year and IMMEDIATELY improve upon his numbers. And don't say, "you don't know that," because deep down, you know he well. What is it they do with drafting and scouting pitchers? Why can't our organization -- which has openly stated a willingless to adopt Minnesota's philosophy on the field -- mimmick it on the minor league level as well? Dbaho, expect much more comparisons to Garza/company to follow. With Lumsden traded, my expectations of our pitching prospects will now reach absurd levels never before witnessed on Soxtalk. That's good news for all of you. Considering Tyler was, IMO, a strong possibility for replacing Buehlre or Garcia in 07', it'll be beneficial if perhaps a Matt Garza within our system emerges to make a transition easier. I know I'd rather build from within than pay either Buehlre or Garcia an extended contract on this market. Or, pay another FA pitcher ridiculous money. I've already envisioned new "Liriano Scale" to rate upcoming pitching prospects in comparison to him. "10" being a complete clone, I set the scales high at 6, knowing it's impossible to find a clone when Latin America is pratically the Lost World for our scouting department. Lots of forbidden talent which seemingly lies outside of reach. I have this image of some overweight, Hawaiian shirt wearing, scouting director in Latin America whose job security is reassured since him and Reinsdorf played golf twenty years ago. His job consists of sitting on baseball fields (every Sunday) basking in the sun and drinking Coronas. Sometimes hangovers make Sunday even a stretch. Or when it's too hot; which is about 90% of the calender year. If it isn't that luxurious in reality, I still wouldn't mind having a job as a Latin scout for the Whtie Sox. Who wouldn't want to be associated with a team which allows a 10 year period without one contributing Latin prospect? Such job security is very appealing. Because I know it's coming, I don't even want to hear the issue of Williams drafting talent with the future ambition of shipping it off for proven MLB talent. I'm tired of everyone blindly preaching this. Personally, and I know others have disagreed, I believe a draft should be endorsed with the knowledge of a selected individual helping our ballclub. Not helping our ballclub through means of obtaining another person. See, whenever someone mentions this line of thinking, it gives me the impression those in charge of the draft don't necessarily select people based upon long term projections for our team. It's more of, "let's hope he produces good numbers in AA so they can be shipped off at the trading deadline." I don't approve of drafts being staging grounds for establishing bargaining chips. Not that anyone gives a spiff. Although I have noticed a surprising amount of people beginning to agree with me. I can't convince people who are unwilling to look beyond this season, but I'll attempt to again: continuing to unload blue-chip prospects to reinforce a "win-now" mentality will eventually catch up. Great, we won a World Series last year. Has this now become our model to success? If the success is the conclusion, as was proven year, SUUUPPPEERR. When players whom commanded top prospects (Vazquez or MacDougal) failed to perform, well, then you have to realize this "win now" mentality has a high probability of backfiring. A 100 million payroll will go a long way to ensuring long-term success, but inserting prospects here and there is even more beneficial. If this is "having my cake and eating it too," excuse me for striving for something beyond mediocrity. Santo=Dorf, since I know you'll be around commenting on something, you need to change the avatar. I can't allow the choking avatar to be defaced like that. Only chokers I've notice play baseball on 35th and Shields.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) How many games do you see the entire starting lineup without one sub come into. Maybe 1 time in the last week or so. The number might not be that far off. Wow, my perception must be off because those numbers are probably right on. In the last ten games alone only two have featured the opening day lineup. Although, even with this knowledge, I can't honestly fault Guillen for how he currently assembles his lineup. His reluctant to play Anderson -- once a peeve of mine -- has diminished quite a bit. Yes, certain matchups against a pitcher have been strange, but our bench is relatively deep. Or atleast it appeared so until this recent slump. Guillen can't help but tinker. Our offense is the highest scoring in the league. If we're breaking down blame for our slump/choke, over 60% has to be on the starting pitching. It's supposed to be a foundation for success, and therefore, expected to compensate for a 3-4 run run output. The dominance of the opening day squad may also be due to past success against a pitcher warranting the lineup, a favorable matchup against a mediocre pitcher, or happening to be together with Contreras. Hundreds of intangibles can factor in. If you think about it, most tough pitchers we face there's usually one or two regulars substituted. Podsednik will probably sit out against Santana/Liriano (which are automatic losses), and Anderson against a tough RH. Losses are reduced right there.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 05:52 PM) We have played 100 games so far. Our opening day lineup has played as a unit in 20 games. We are 17-3 in those games. That can't be right. I knew it was probably a relatively low number , but I wouldn't have guessed 20. I'd say close to 50-60% of games Guillen has had his opening-day lineup.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) All of this talk of Guillen would rather leave his starter in to get a victory vs. helping his own ballclub earn a victory is IMO nonsense and completely misunderstood. He knows starting pitching is the key to success, he doesn't have to look back too far to figure that out. Starting pitchers pitch best when they're confident, are able to adjust on the fly, and are aggressive and attacking. In order to have confidence, they have to be left in to work through some things. This site hates that philosophy but he is always trying to instill confidence in his players. Always. Misunderstood? Guillen himself has replied, when asked why a starter was left out, that he was attempting to give his starter an opportunity to win. I know this isn't an exact quote, but it isn't a figment of my imagination, either. Concerning yourself with a starters victory total means, in essence, leaving them out one inning more than necessary. This isn't Guillen thinking, "I rather see a 'W' next to Garcia than Jenks," but him disregarding a pitchers fatigue or a team's previous inning success against someone. How many times have we seen Garcia battle though the 6th or 7th inning, just escape, and come out the following inning only to give up a run? All with a rested bullpen. You can call it instilling confidence, I believe it's failing to recognize a game situation.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) I will tell you which is better when you're in a wild card race. The known quantity, the guy(s) who've proven they can win when it counts, and by that I mean Buehrle and Garcia. Vazquez ... they need to shorten the game for him ... and possibly the others too. Buehrle hasn't proven he can win an important game in over a month. That's concern enough for me. He's failed miserably against playoff and non-playoff contenders alike. The myth of "Big Game Freddy" died when 5-7 mph of velocity disappeared from his fastball. To think, last season -- with nearly our entire rotation having career seasons -- we were willing to insert McCarthy into the rotation. Granted, after quite a unsuccessful stretch from Hernandez. Now, with Garland and Contreras seemingly the only starter capable of pitching consecutive, quality outtings, we're holding McCarthy in the bullpen. A bullpen which has dramatically improved since the seasons onset. AND, when you constrast with last years situation, we actually had a division lead. In this instance we're fighting for our survival and still reluctant for change. It's ridiculous, IMO.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) Which is exactly the mistake they made IMO. Why did they try to pigeonhole this guy into a reliever slot when he's always been a starter, just to have him on the team. He should be in Charlotte starting and should have been all year. That way he's 100% prepared in case of injury. I can understand why they'd stick with the same starters after a championship and I also understand why they'd get a veteran to help defend the championship. It hasn't worked out great thus far but the season isn't over and I understand why they did it. They should have brought in a reasonably capable long relief guy, let him have the role, and prep McCarthy for starting at Charlotte. I agree. It was a mistake many observed from the beginning. Problem was, our bullpen -- which everyone identified as a weakness -- needed McCarthy.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) He's playing favorites with his Latin buddies? The conspiracy theories on this site are getting more and more humorous. Considering all you know of Guillen, would it honestly surprise you if he were reluctant to insert McCarthy into the rotation out of concern he may lose the respect of Latin ballplayers? He rather leave in a struggling starter to earn a victory than help his own ballclub earn a victory, yet, this scenario is absurd? We're not talking about Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox here. It wouldn't suprise me in the least. I'm not certain in the least. What I know is what's happening right now isn't working. We're tailing into third place rather quickly, and unless a significant trade occurs which immediately improves our ballclub, such changes need to occur within the ballclub. Bullpen failures don't necessarily translate to rotation failures. He rarely uses his curveball, for example, and the feel for a changeup appears nonexistent. I'd rather lose down the stretch with McCarthy in the rotation than Garcia or Vazquez. Even with his mediocre results out of the bullpen.

QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) We know what's going on though. Ozzie's playing favorites with his latin buddies. I know some people will begin their self-righteous replies of "OMG, how can you say that?" but I believe there's truth to such a statement. Not that he prefers Latin ballplayers as a whole, but in this instance, Guillen is afraid of losing the respect of his Latin players. Why else would we continue to leave McCarthy in the bullpen? Could someone explain? As I've already said, McCarthy pitching starts of 50/70/90 pitches and losing every one is still more vital to our season than Garcia or Vazquez continuing to get shelled. And no, Garcia's last start against Texas doesn't convince me of anything. Even if McCarthy doesn't provide much improvement, atleast it was an attempt to "shake up" our ballclub. What's occuring right now doesn't assure me suddenly everything will turn around.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) Ozzie in the postgame.... No plans for bmac in the rotation. We wish the current pitchers get better. Nice Only way McCarthy would be in the rotation is if one of the current starters were traded. Williams has basically ruled out that option. What irritates myself, and fans alike, is when an organization is reluctant to do something which EVERYONE whose familar with baseball can agree to. If Liriano were in our bullpen he'd still be rotting there. We're falling in the standings, and wouldn't you know; the starting pitching is responsible for our troubles. Yet we're not inserting McCarthy in the rotation? Is Guillen more concerned with losing the confidence of one player rather than helping his team win? I'd rather take several losses with McCarthy pitching 4-5 innings if it means he'll be available in midAugust/September. Better option than leaving Freddy Maddux on the mound.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) HERE'S MY LESSON: DON'T HATE MINNESOTA. DON'T ENVY THEM. E M U L A T E THEM! IT'S WHAT WE DID LAST SEASON! WE'RE STILL NOT MATHEMATICALLY OUT OF IT YET, SO...until that time, I'd suggest we take a look at them as something which should be emulated, and quick. This isn't meant to criticize you, LVSoxFan, but why don't people hold this issue for our minor league system as well? We're willing to emulate Minnesota's team philosophy of pitching and defense, why not attempt to follow a similar order for their method of scouting? Or developing players? Find out the particular players they look for in trades or drafts and attempt to mimmick it.

How about that Mark Buehrle? He's been TERRIBLE as of late. It may be to a point where, unless he rebounds, we may have to reconsider his option for next year. Is it worth paying Buehrle 10 million if he's producing at his current rate? I'm sure he'll rebound -- it's impossible to remain this bad -- but if he's giving up 5ER every other outing it may be wise to consider another path. It's past the point where this is a slump. He's either been completely figured out or pitching through an injury.

"AND (WE'RE) FREE......................." "FREE FALLIN'."

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Flash, you didn't answer my main point in your other thread. Why should we care about young arms and bullpen filler guys in the minors if we control 10 of our current pitchers through 2007 and 9 of them through 2008? I didn't notice your question in whichever thread it was posted. Of those 10 pitchers, it just happens three starters -- Buehrle, Vazquez, Garcia -- are included. It's to the point where Buehrle's struggles are beyond a mere "slump." Either there's an unbelievable scouting report available or he's injured. Vazquez's concerns are mental, although his "stuff" remains. Garica, obviously, has lost about 5-7 mph on his fastball. Personally, I believe it's important for our club to have several pitchers available who can reasonably be expected to replace these starters. Bullpen arms are notoriously unreliable season to season. Having a contigency plan available from within the system limits situations such a overpaying for Mike MacDougal. What irritates me about trading Lumsden is it limits options in 07. If he were available to replace Buehlre, or Garcia, it may have made either a trading chip. Thus, because of our good situation, we could have whichever package Buehlre/Garcia provided and a young, cheap pitcher available. These are the scenarios I hope for.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) Where does Minny come up with these guys. Neshek is there young stud bullpen guy Where's our Neshek? Anyone? We compete with these teams in the field; it should be extended to include farm systems. Having a contributing minor league system would go a long way to ensuring that. "Trading off prospects for major leauge players is how we compete" isn't enough. We need quality arms for THIS team, eventually. It'd be nice to ahve a few SP prospects available to replace our current rotation. Or reliable relief prospects.

Chat room open for the coalition of the willing. Click "Live Chat" under the banner on the top of this page.

BIG INNING11!!!!! Don't ever tell me Contreras is comparable with Santana. And of course, who's the person responsible for a bad pitch during a close game but one of our pitchers.

DJ: "It may be one of those games where one pitch makes a difference." Of course, that one pitch won't be from Santana.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 08:29 PM) Starts with Pablo next inning. Funny, of all our team members he consistently puts up quality AB's against Santana. Even the AB's he's recording outs Pablo appears comfortable. I wouldn't mind if he attempted a bunt early in the count. Even if it's popped up or right to a defender, hits are far between for our offense against him as it is. Might as well try something else.

Is it possible to win a baseball game 1-1? I'm tired of bed wettings against Santana. Take extra video, lay down a bunt, adopt a plan between hitters of alternating which pitch to look for; do something. You can't just sit back and shrug your shoulders. If we're going to get 1 run off Santana and Liriano the remaining outtings, might as well forfeit them now. Our pitchers are nowhere near their talent. Even with Contreras batting Santana tonight, no one can tell me they're comparable. I just have that feeling Contreras will be the first to make a mistake. More than an additional two runs added onto their run total and it won't look too good for us.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 08:04 PM) I don't think Contreras is losing focus at all. Actually, I think he's our best pitcher at that. I didn't mean to imply he's currently losing focus. Just that he can't. Whether that's from a close pitched called against him or a soft hit escaping the defense.

Lately, in pitching duels such as tonight we're always the club who gives up the lead. Contreras can't lose his focus. It's obvious his offense won't help him much.

Is there anything more demoralizing than scoring a run off Santana, then giving it RIGHT BACK the first batter? Contreras better realize he's not opposing Joe Mays. Runs won't come at a premium; con't continue laying fat fastballs down the palte in hitters counts.

Cubs 6 - Mets 4, 3rd inning. Keep the runs coming. Garcia is always available.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 06:01 PM) I remember talking about how we should trade someone in the middle of the year. Well, where's our benefits? Considering every starter held higher value than they currently do, it was obvious waiting until midseason was a risk. I recall asking why would Williams trade a peforming starter midseason? Only realistic scenario would be if a particular pitching were underperforming; and at that juncture, what could you get for them? Looks like it has become rather prophetic. I know the concern was having McCarthy available in the bullpen incase an injury occurs. Regardless, I was willing to accept such a scenario if it could have given our ballclub a respectable package. However, I can't compliment myself too much because I was willing to unload Contreras for the right price. Without his early success anchoring our rotation, who knows where we'd be? On that same note, with McCarthy in the rotation and whichever pieces around the ballclub (ideally bulpen and SP prospect), it may not have been much different.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) Seems like this isn't anything that will happen imminently unless KW gives in. I wish another general manager would just give in for Garcia already. Every passing moment he remains on our ballclub and McCarthy continues pitching out of the pen aggrivates me further. 12 of the 16 National League ballclubs are within 6 games of the division or wildcard, and not ONE team aside from New York has inquired about him? I knew over last offseason, when everyone was suggesting, "wait until midseason to trade a starter because teams will overpay," that nothing would happen. We never seem to be in a good position concerning value of our players. Typically, we're the team overpaying for talent. Where's the pseudo Williams out there willing to overpay for Garcia? I'm actually rooting for the Cubs to defeat the Mets these upcoming two games. Perhaps Atlanta can reel off a few wins as well and create a sense of urgency for Minaya.